What anesthetic protocol should be chosen for performing a cesarean section in dogs?

УДК 636.09
DOI 10.33861/2071-8020-2025-3-46-52

Original Empirical Research

Atamanchuk E. B., Shebeko S. K., Ermakov A. M., Bogdanov A.A.

Abstract. It is known that the different composition of the anesthetic protocol affects the vital functions of the mother and the viability of the newborn in different ways, and determines the course of postoperative follow-up. In this regard, the work on the evaluation of anesthetic aids for cesarean section in dogs does not lose its relevance. The aim of the study to compare 8 different protocols of anesthesia during cesarean section in dogs according to their effect on vital signs of bitches in the intraoperative period, as well as to evaluate the viability of newborns after surgery.

Materials and methods. The study included 162 bitches, who were divided into 8 groups, depending on the anesthetic protocol used. PSE group (n=20): induction was performed with propofol; to maintain general anesthesia, sevoflurane inhalation, lidocaine epidural anesthesia; PPL group(n=21): induction was performed with propofol, followed by maintaining anesthesia with the same drug in the form of an infusion at a constant rate; lidocaine injections at the incision site and into the ovarian ligaments; PST group (n=22): propofol was used as an induction agent, sevoflurane was used as a maintenance anesthesia, as well as additional administration of propofol boluses; PIE group (n=20): anesthesia was performed using propofol induction, intraoperative inhalation anesthesia, and lidocaine epidural anesthesia; The PIL group (n=22): anesthesia consisted of propofol induction, maintenance of anesthesia with isoflurane and local infiltration anesthesia with lidocaine at the incision site, and additionally bilateral injection of lidocaine into the ovarian ligaments, the PIFL group (n=19): induction was performed by administration of propofol in combination with fentanyl, supportive anesthesia with isoflurane, analgesia was performed by infiltration anesthesia at the incision site with lidocaine, followed by constant-rate infusion of lidocaine in combination with fentanyl; PSL group (n=20): anesthesia was performed using propofol induction, intraoperative inhalation anesthesia with sevoflurane and local, layered, infiltration anesthesia with lidocaine in the incision area, and additionally bilateral injection of lidocaine into the ovarian ligaments; PPE group (n=18): induction was performed using intravenous administration of propofol, followed by epidural anesthesia with lidocaine, followed by maintaining anesthesia by administering propofol as an infusion at a constant rate. In the course of the work, a comparative assessment of the functions of the respiratory (BDD, SaO2, EtCO2) and cardiovascular systems (monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate) was carried out, as well as body temperature recording immediately after induction into anesthesia (0 minutes), 5, 20 and 40 minutes after administration into anesthesia. The condition of the puppies was assessed on the Apgar scale. After cesarean section, the condition of the mothers was assessed according to the acute pain Assessment scale.

Results and Discussion. The most stable indicators in assessing the functions of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, acceptable parameters on the pain assessment scale, as well as a high score in assessing the condition of puppies on the Apgar scale were noted in the following groups: PIE, PIFL, PIL, PSE, PSL. The most pronounced decrease in indicators was recorded in the PPL and PPE groups.

Conclusion. According to the results of the study, it is worth noting that we do not recommend using the protocol from the PST group during this surgical intervention due to the high rates of postoperative pain in dogs. Protocols from the PPL and PPE groups should also be used with caution due to the pronounced effect of propofol on the hemodynamics of both the maternal body and newborns.

Keywords: anesthesia of dogs, cesarean section, newborn puppies, epidural anesthesia, inhalation anesthesia, analgesics, anesthetic protocol; Apgar scale.

Author affiliation:

Shebeko Sergey K., D. Sc. in Pharmaceutics, Professor of the Don State Technical University; 1, Gagarina sq., Rostov-on-Don, 344010; e-mail: shebeko_sk@mail.ru.

Ermakov Aleksey M., D. Sc. in Biology, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Bioengineering and Veterinary Medicine of the Don State Technical University; 1, Gagarina sq., Rostov-on-Don, 344010; e-mail: amermakov@ya.ru.

Bogdanov Artem A., 5th year student of the Saint-Petersburg State University of Veterinary Medicine; 5, Chernigovskaya st., Saint-Petersburg, 196084; e-mail: artembogdanov254@gmail.com.

Responsible for correspondence with the editorial board: Atamanchuk Egor B., postgraduate student of the Don State Technical University; 1, Gagarina sq., Rostov-on-Don, 344010; e-mail: snakeice89@mail.ru.

Author’s Contribution:

Atamanchuk E.B.: methodology, anesthetic protocols, performing some of the anesthetic procedures, visualization, writing - original draft preparation.

Shebeko S.K.: formal analysis, validation.

Ermakov A.M.: conceptualization, data curation, project administration, writing - review & editing.

Bogdanov A.A.: anesthetic protocols, validation.

Conflict of Interest Statement: the authors declare no conflict of interest.